[MD] Unreality of Equality

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Greetings DM,

[you wrote]
Can't help thinking that holding inequality in such high esteem is the problem,
so we allow the wealthy to increase their wealth by a mountain of lies.

[Arlo]
Agree. And I think the key thing to watch is how "inequality" morphs into "of
greater value". Inequality of skill drives social evolution. Inequality of
value destroys social evolution.

I think, as I've said many times, that the origins of the modern dilema trace
back to the rise of mercantilian discourse, which put us on a slow ride from
"man is the measure of all things" to "money (wealth) is the measure of the
man". Money, in western culture, has become the dominant force in defining
"who" has value, and how one should focus their lives to achieve value.

We come to think of the wealthy as somehow inherently "superior", and certainly
more deserving than the lazy, worthless "moochers". Those who are poor are so
because they are stupid and lazy. This has become the underlying reality in
modern discourse. And if someone is poor, and they can't afford medicine or
food, then they should just do everyone a favor and die. Sounds harsh, but its
really at the bottom of the rhetoric.

This is the progression from inequality in skill, an undeniable good, to
inequality in value, an undeniable evil.

And its not bounded by static nationalist borders. Poor countries are lesser
value, their people seen as inherently inferior. Cultures where there is no
wealth are deemed ipso facto totally and absolutely inferior. Money defines
good, and hence the value of the man.

I think this was part of Pirsig's warning about the success of the west in
creating power and toys lost in the process any understanding of what it means
to be a part of the world. We are so fixated on accumulating wealth, and
thereby asserting our supremeity over others, that we lose sight of the simply
fact that Arete is not bounded by wealth, or culture, or power. Arete is the
striving for excellence in one's life. And whether that person is an aboriginal
tribesman or an American retiree matters not. 

Pirsig, in ZMM, translated the Tao te Ching with the word "Quality" for the Tao.
I do the same with the Eightfold Buddhist Path.

Quality View, Quality Intention, Quality Speech, Quality Action, Quality
Livelihood, Quality Effort, Quality Mindfulness, Quality Concentration.

These are the things Arete teaches. There is nothing wrong with earning a
living, from doing what one has to do to live within a culture. But the value
of the person should be judged by their adherence to (for example) the Quality
paths above. Or the Greek Arete model. Or Quality as Dharma, as the Tao. And
nowhere in any of that do I see anything remotely indicating that "wealth"
bestows "value". Indeed, as SA reminded us recently, in some Indian tribes,
"poverty" bestows "value". But that poverty only reflects value (in that
culture) when it comes as the result of helping others. And that is what the
chief was doing, placing the Good of others above the accumulation of
possessions.

But now we are right back to "over consumption" and the dogmatic adherence to
consumerism and materialism (not in the philosophic sense). In this view, man
can do no greater thing than enrich the amount of his possessions, either raw
money or the objects it affords. And that brings us right back to the
mercantilistic worldview that this accumulation bestows value and superiority
on the individual, the nation, and the culture. In Lila, Pirsig jokes about the
utter aghastness that would be met with a "poor" person actually having the
audacity to knock on the door of the "rich". We are moving back in that
direction, as Pirsig says in Lila, back to Victorianism, where man is measured
by social success and the poor are despicable little creatures to be avoided.
It'll soon be 1890  all over again.

Only good, I suppose, is that we'll get a new Mark Twain. God knows we need
one...

Arlo